I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment.
What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?
> inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment
Most cities aren't visible from LEO in the day; none are, day or night, from the Moon with the "naked" eye.
We are centuries from building anything on the Moon visible to the naked eye. And given how often I've seen the shaded part of the Moon in pop culture coloured in with stars, I'm not sure most people would notice the lights from a major lunar city either.
On the moon any dust you kick up will travel much, much farther than on earth, and you could hardly build a moon civilization without mining regolith. It's practically crushed ore. With no atmosphere there's going to be less light attenuation (but also less diffusion).
The only discussions I can find about light from the moon being visible on earth, talk about whether we would ever be able to see light on the bright half of the moon and that seems to be pretty impossible. The other side is a lot less illumination. People in cities probably wouldn't see it. But rural people can see the milky way.
Considering you can't see any of the "geometric structures, lights, and disturbances of the immediate environment" of the Earth from the moon, I don't really understand how you think humans could possibly do the opposite.
yeah, That is kinda their point. "affect" alone should not be the basis for law or regulation.
Lots of things "affect" others, but that does not generate an entitlement not to be affected. IF I choose to quit a job, that affects my employer. I chose not to date someone, they are affected. Neither of those are reason to restrict my choice.